Search

Background German S3 guidelines are subject to the highest methodological standards. This includes that they are only valid for a certain time period. Following the first edition in 2012 the first update of the S3 guidelines on bipolar disorder has now been published (2019). Objective What has changed in the field of pharmacological recommendations comparing the first edition with the update in 2019? Material and methods Comparison of the 1st edition from 2012 with the update from 2019 of the S3 guidelines for the diagnostics and treatment of bipolar disorders. Results The three principle treatment targets of acute treatment of bipolar depression, acute treatment of mania and phase prophylaxis (maintenance treatment) can be distinguished. For acute treatment of bipolar depression, for the first time a medication has received a level A recommendation: quetiapine. For the acute treatment of mania, several drugs are still recommended with the same level of recommendation (B). Asenapine has been added as the tenth substance. Lithium is still the only drug with a level A recommendation for maintenance and prophylactic treatment and is also the only drug approved for this indication without restrictions. A new recommendation is that in the absence of contraindications, phase prophylaxis with a serum level of at least 0.6x202f;mmol/l should be carried out. With a B recommendation, quetiapine has been added to the drugs for phase prophylactic treatment. Conclusion The S3 guidelines make recommendations at the highest scientific level. In view of these findings, lithium is clearly underutilized for maintenance therapy. In the absence of clear contraindications (advanced renal insufficiency), every patient with bipolar disease should be given the chance of lithium prophylaxis for an adequately long period.

Objective Recent meta-analyses on dose-response relationships of SSRIs are largely based on indirect evidence. We analyzed RCTs directly comparing different SSRI doses. Method Systematic literature search for RCTs. Two raters independently screened articles and extracted data. Across SSRIs, doses defined as low, medium, and high doses, based on drug manufacturers' product monographs, were analyzed in pairwise random-effects meta-analyses and in a sensitivity network meta-analysis with regard to differences in antidepressive efficacy (primary outcome). We also analyzed all direct comparisons of different dosages of specific SSRIs. (Prospero CRD42018081031). Results Out of 5333 articles screened, we included 33. Comparisons of dosage groups (low, medium, and high) resulted in only small and clinically non-significant differences for SSRIs as a group, the strongest relating to medium vs low doses (SMD: -0.15 [95%-CI: -0.28; -0.01) and not sustained in a sensitivity analysis. Among different doses of specific SSRIs, no statistically significant trend emerged for efficacy at higher doses, but 60 mg/day fluoxetine are statistically significantly inferior to 20 mg/day. Paroxetine results are inconclusive: 10 mg/day are inferior to higher doses, but 30 and 40 mg/day are inferior to 20 mg/day. Meaningful effects cannot be ruled out for certain drugs and dosages, often investigated in only one trial. Dropout rates increase with dose-particularly due to side effects. Network meta-analyses supported our findings. Conclusions There is no conclusive level I or level II evidence of a clinically meaningful dose-response relationship of SSRIs as a group or of single substances. High SSRI doses are not recommended as routine treatment.

ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of baclofen vs. placebo for long-term treatment of alcohol use disorder. MethodSystematic review and meta-analysis following methods of the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook (PROSPERO registration: CRD42017073663). Primary outcome was the random-effects summary estimate of all standardized mean differences (SMDs), as calculated from the primary outcomes of each study. ResultsFourteen double-blind RCTs (1522 patients) were included. Heterogeneity was substantial for most analyses (I-2 about 75%). Baclofen showed a small, but not statistically significant superiority over placebo: SMD=0.22 ([95% CI: -0.03; 0.47], P=0.09). This result was supported by a leave-one-out-analysis, and Orwin's fail-safe N, by predefined secondary analyses (on abstinence rates and amount of drinking), and by a post hoc-analysis of high-dose studies (>80mg/day). An analysis of low risk of bias studies (SMD=0.10 [-0.20; 0.41], P=0.51, I-2=43.3%) found no effect. Exclusion of four studies focusing on patients with comorbidity yielded a small positive effect. Drop-out rates were similar. ConclusionOur results question baclofen's utility in the long-term treatment of alcohol use disorder at both normal and high doses. While the confidence intervals indicate that marginally harmful or moderately beneficial effects of baclofen remain a possibility, the most likely effect size is slightly above placebo effects.

In clinical practice, there is a need for a more individualized selection of antidepressants and adequate dosage. The investigation of pharmacokinetically relevant genes is a promising approach to assist this selection. In the past 2 years, two commercially available tests have been subject of advertisement, a test from Stada, which analyses variants of the cytochrome P450 isoenzymes CYP2D6 and CYP2C19 and a test from HMNC Brain Health, which analyses variants of the ABCB1 gene. The costs for both kits are not covered by the statutory health insurance and it is therefore proposed that the patients are invoiced directly in the form of individual healthcare payment. The companies claim that by applying the tests antidepressant treatment failure can be avoided and that patients will respond faster to the antidepressant used. These claims are not based on appropriate clinical trials, which are either lacking or reveal conflicting results. Hence, the routine use of these tests is not recommended. In accordance with the German S3 Guideline for unipolar depression, therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of serum levels should be carried out in cases of non-response to an antidepressant with adequate dosage and duration. As a rule the costs for TDM are covered by the statutory health insurance. Cytochrome P450 genotyping is only indicated when the serum level is not within the expected range and other reasons to explain this discrepancy are excluded. Many laboratories provide these analyses and in individual cases the costs are reimbursed by the statutory health insurance. Further research should be carried out to investigate the importance of the ABCB1 gene for the treatment with antidepressants.

Objectives. This 2013 update of the practice guidelines for the biological treatment of unipolar depressive disorders was developed by an international Task Force of the World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry (WFSBP). The goal has been to systematically review all available evidence pertaining to the treatment of unipolar depressive disorders, and to produce a series of practice recommendations that are clinically and scientifically meaningful based on the available evidence. The guidelines are intended for use by all physicians seeing and treating patients with these conditions. Methods. The 2013 update was conducted by a systematic update literature search and appraisal. All recommendations were approved by the Guidelines Task Force. Results. This first part of the guidelines (Part 1) covers disease definition, classification, epidemiology, and course of unipolar depressive disorders, as well as the management of the acute and continuation phase treatment. It is primarily concerned with the biological treatment (including antidepressants, other psychopharmacological medications, electroconvulsive therapy, light therapy, adjunctive and novel therapeutic strategies) of adults. Conclusions. To date, there is a variety of evidence-based antidepressant treatment options available. Nevertheless there is still a substantial proportion of patients not achieving full remission. In addition, somatic and psychiatric comorbidities and other special circumstances need to be more thoroughly investigated. Therefore, further high-quality informative randomized controlled trials are urgently needed. © 2013 Informa Healthcare.